Vision and Faith: Responses and Supplements

[Note: Since online media such as "Stand News" and "Zhongxin" have stopped operating earlier, I have republished some articles (or a small number of articles that were previously submitted but not accepted for publication) that were published in these media in the past. Therefore, this article is one of them. ]

Not long ago, the author's article, "Vision and Faith—Reflections on My Ten Years of Religious Experience in Fuyatan" , was published, and received responses from readers very quickly, and I also thought of some supplementary content, so I wrote this article.

1. Response

Belief Network: Some readers believe that immortals and Buddhas exist, because the answers to questions they get in the altar are very accurate and absolutely unambiguous. Regardless of whether the exact answer it claims is true (and the reader did not provide an example), even if I assume it is, this of course constitutes cause for concern, but it does not conclusively conclude the existence of immortals and Buddhas, because our belief system constitutes In a network, there is a logical relationship between propositions and propositions, so we need to check if a proposition is accepted, it will have "bad effects" on other propositions of the belief network; if so, it is possible that the original proposition can be Belief can be denied, even if it is supported by evidence (in fact, readers who want to appreciate the complexity and difficulty of properly dealing with belief systems can look to the "paradox").

The work we have to do is actually to find the "best explanation", the "Xian-Buddha hypothesis" is a possible explanation, but in principle there may be other explanations (but in fact we are not smart enough for the time being to think of ), we have to consider the situation comprehensively in order to assess the credibility of each explanation, for example, the issue of "other religions" mentioned in the last paragraph of the last article will have to be dealt with.

Appeal to Religious Classics: Some readers are really attentive and wrote a long email to me, sincerely sharing their views, hoping that everyone can get closer to the truth. I would like to thank in advance and enjoy a good exchange, however, I cannot agree with the main idea, which is briefly described below.

The reader is a believer, and the ultimate basis for his argument is often expressed like: according to the scriptures I teach, how is the situation; that is, his worldview is based on the scriptures. The obvious response is to ask: So why believe the canon? Based on the quality of the content of the email I read, I'm sure the reader "can" answer me, but of course, that doesn't necessarily mean the answer is worthy of critical evaluation. Due to the complexity of the issue, I will only outline my personal general view in response.

In fact, many high-quality analyses have pointed out some important and unreasonable contents of religious scriptures for reference, but I know that some people will come up with all kinds of responses and rebuttals, trying to defend the scriptures they believe in, And some of these defenses may be reasonable, depending on the specific issue, but what I want to discuss is some unreasonable defenses that do everything to defend the classics. Why are there such unreasonable defenses? I guess an important reason is that it is precisely because if all beliefs and whole worldviews are based on one (or some) canon, then if the canon is seriously questioned, it means that it may endanger all the buildings above (all beliefs, whole worldview!), so psychological resistance is natural.

So why are those defenses unreasonable? The key is the concept of "closed system", that is, our belief system can form a closed system due to unreasonable defense at all costs. Its seemingly unfalsifiable "strength" is actually its weakness, Unreasonable. For example, if I were to insist on the absurd proposition that "cats are highly intelligent aliens who came to earth to monitor humans", do you think I can defend it? Of course, there are many powerful questions that can be raised, but if I want to defend at all costs, I can actually raise a lot of "sound reasonable" rebuttals (for example, doubt: I can't see the cat's performance of high intelligence, but I can refute: it is exactly the same. High intelligence, so the concealment method is very successful!), and gradually a closed system will be formed. (For a detailed discussion and criticism of "closed system", please refer to Dr. Li Tianming's work.)

My own opinion is that religious scriptures certainly have their high value, but it is unreasonable and uncritical to base all one's beliefs and whole worldview on them. The world and universe that I understand fundamentally still have many mysteries and mysteries that have not been solved, and it is impossible to talk about finding answers and foundations from the classics. (Of course, this involves the question of how to understand the source of the classics. I have already said that the problem is complicated, so I will stop here for the time being.)

Self-hypnosis and the Intentional Effect: In the previous article, I said that a teacher tried to explain why the pen moved by using the master's self-hypnosis, and I also questioned: "I don't know much about hypnosis, But if you know the situation of the Taoist altar, you should think it is unlikely, because the master does not need any preparation (for example, he is chatting with people), but he can hold the pen at any time (the pen will move) It's not like going into a hypnotic state." After reading my article, the teacher added his point of view, saying, "I believe that a hand trained for a long time can hypnotize itself in a very short time." To this addition, my response was: : 1. The master hand does have many years of experience in helping the hand; 2. I have already said that I don’t know much about hypnosis, but I just want to reiterate that the performance of the hand before, during and after the hand is too natural. It seems that there is no difference between us not entering a hypnotic state. However, I do not rule out the possibility that my knowledge of hypnosis is just not enough, and this person does have the possibility of self-hypnosis. Judge with confidence (or better if confirmed by scientific experiments).

In addition, the teacher also said that in addition to self-hypnosis, the "ideomotor effect" (also known as "ideomotor effect") needs to be added to explain the movements of the pen. In fact, his explanation scheme of self-hypnosis plus intentional effect can also be found on the Internet to try to explain some visions involving the movement of objects. For example, you can watch the demonstration and explanation of the following video.

According to my understanding, the key in the video turns because the key is placed on the slightly slanted palm, and when the man claims to be self-hypnotic, the hand muscles will involuntarily move slightly to match the The idea of "key turning", and the effect achieved is the actual key turning. Some other anomalous cases that can be found on the Internet that this program attempts to explain include Pendulum, Dowsing Rod (there seems to be no unified Chinese translation on the Internet), etc. In particular, these instructions appear to involve "involuntary slight movements" of the muscles to produce the desired effect. If so, I think it is difficult to explain the movement of the jibi. Why? This is because the ji pens in this altar move quite fast and the force is quite strong, and the movement trajectory involves a sharp turn. For example, do you think the unconscious slight muscle movement of the motion effect can explain Bruce Lee's double play Is it the case of the stick? ! Yes, it's a bit of an exaggeration, but it seems far less out of line than using the Motion Effect to explain the strokes.

So is it possible that in a special state of self-hypnosis, the master will exert force on the pen and still be unconscious? Then I can only say that this is too far-fetched, and I can't see any preliminary credibility. In fact, I said in the last article that I was also a helper, and I am absolutely sure that I did not exert force. Therefore, some people may suspect that I was in a special state of hypnosis and unconsciously exerted force. To this, I can only answer: "Yes, it is possible, and it is also possible for me to finish writing this article unconsciously!"

In addition, I would like to remind you about the movement of Gubi, it seems to be related to the content of Gubi, because Gubi is not a pure and meaningless movement, but involves writing words. Therefore, when explaining the movement of Gubi , and also consider explaining the content of the text at the same time.

I am against the simple belief that the altar vision must not be explained by science, which will hinder the development of science; however, I also oppose the simple belief that the existing scientific theories must be able to explain the altar vision, which will also hinder the development of science!

2. Supplement

Doubts about Immortal Buddhas and Science: In the last article, I mentioned the following doubts: "The Immortal Buddhas who descended the altar seem to understand, ignore, and not interested in science, but the question is, if they do not have scientific knowledge, how can they possibly understand What about in this modern technological world? If you don’t understand it, how can you give good life advice?” Some people may retort: “There is nothing new under the sun, and immortals and Buddhas have been around for hundreds or even thousands of years (or even more) "Jia"?), he has already penetrated the world, and even if he does not understand science, he can still give good life advice. "I understand the meaning of this kind of response, and I don't object that there is some truth in it, but I still want to add: 1. I mean that the immortal Buddha descending the altar more or less gives people a sense of staying for a certain time (it seems especially The feeling of the ancients, such as their conversation and caring (for example, they talk about some things in life or Chinese history, but not about modern technological inventions); 2. I don’t think immortals and Buddhas need to be technology experts Only by understanding the modern world of science and technology, but only thinking that it gives people a considerable sense of distance from science and technology, will naturally make people doubt whether they have a basic understanding of the modern world of science and technology. Not based on our mortal ways, but some mystical power, and yet how does the speaker know? Even so, since it is a mystery, the ability to appeal to it is very limited.

The weight that needs to be supported: The vision at the Fuya altar is noteworthy and confusing, but can the hypothetical world of immortals and Buddhas bear the relevant explanatory weight? (Actually a similar question can be applied to any "transcendent metaphysical hypothesis" that tries to explain the world.) What does that mean? I mean, think of the richness of human experience (with its various learnings, cares, thoughts, etc.), and the diversity of the world (various animal forms, plant forms, physical phenomena, etc.); if someone proposes a set of , in relation to our world, under some important meaning, is higher than, or covers, or is more fundamental to the transcendental metaphysical assumption of our world, then the natural question is: can it really be Explain our extremely rich world? Can it bear this incomparable weight of instruction? In fact, a lot of my skepticism stems from the belief that the relevant attempts to justify its effectiveness are questionable.

Man's desire for the gods: In the face of the world's sometimes seemingly endless darkness, in the face of one's own powerlessness, if there is a powerful light, justice and benevolent power, how good it is - what a deep desire! Of course, the existence of gods has been debated for centuries, and I have nothing new to add. I only hope that those who ask serious questions will look into their own hearts-is it subjective desire, objective reason, or other forces that most affect their judgment?